StarCraft II :: 27-7-10

[abigsmurf]

Low polygon models with fine detail through bumpmapping. I suspect the reliance on bump mapping is why the game looks so... Shiny.

The main problem is the generic backgrounds. C&C3 had higher poly models but also had distinctive backgrounds. Starcraft's generic 2.5D-ish metallic backgrounds give the game a slightly generic look.

The worry I have with Starcraft 2 is that they try to replicate starcraft1 in 3D without adding anything to the genre.

[angelox]

Its great that this game is in dev. I'm glad they are not going the Supreme Commander way, trying to full out of gfx. Like others have said before, Blizzard have made games that not only work on 3-4 year old hardware on launch but also on mac's - which is a mean feat by anyone standards. The game needs to run on what most LAN caffe's are running right now considering its the online aspect that keeps Blizzards games going.

At this time though, I have no idea how long it is untill the game comes out. Could be at the end of the year, could be three years from now knowing Blizzard.

[FreelancePolice]

Personally i worry that they try and add something and end up tacking something on for the sake of it. Maybe i'm alone in wanting an updated starcraft, in fact sod it, I want starcraft in the warcraft 3 engine

They've clearly only shown 1 (maybe 2 if you count the dark rocky terrain) environment. Remember the Protoss had lush green environments, I think it would be a little early to right the game off based on 10 or so screenshots.

[SuperBeatBoy]

they said the game is really early, even though it has been in developmen for a year or 2. its only a prelude for better things to come. blizzard haven't dissappointed me with a release yet.

[FreelancePolice]

http://kotaku.com/gaming/overkill/starcraft-2-media-blitz-261910.php

Some nice artwork

[Dezm0nd]

I rarely play PC games but i've waited for this for a loooong time, I hope it runs on low spec machines

it looks like WC3, art wise and it looks lovely in motion

[gizmo1990]

they said the game is really early, even though it has been in developmen for a year or 2. its only a prelude for better things to come. blizzard haven't dissappointed me with a release yet.

Well I gotta say I was massively dissappointed with War3. For me it was the first wrong step Blizzard had done in a long time.

Having said that I have every confidence that they'll learn from the dissappointment that was War3 and produce something outstanding for Starcraft. They have to really as there's a lot riding on it.

Personally I think they should just add some new units, better squad grouping, better queuing, some kick ass graphics (while still giving a well balanced view of the combat area) up the number of units during play for massive battles and ship it. Job done.

[FreelancePolice]

Wasn't warcraft 3 really well received and is still played a fair old bit? Maybe not on the scale of starcraft but still....

The build queues are something they could definately improve on, SC does it very well. However I wouldn't want them to lose the larger than life characters in some sort of mass production assembly line of units.

[abigsmurf]

Warcraft 3 got good reviews but the regular multiplayer is flawed, the heros wreck the balance and there're cheap tactics that are too hard to defend against, especially if you're certain races. The graphics weren't great too, even for the time.

What's kept the game alive are the custom games made through the extremely versatile scripting engine, namely DOTA and Footman Frenzy which, despite being horribly unbalanced are really fun games.

[FreelancePolice]

I quite enjoyed my lan games I had with mates but then again we weren't too clued up on exploiting cheap tactics. I always enjoyed starcraft multiplayer more, it always seemed balanced to me. Maybe it was clichéd in it's three race's strengths but the atmosphere and character made it so compelling.

[eastyy]

i was not keen on warcraft 3 for me it tried to mix in rpg with rts and it didnt really do enough of either always thought they were limited

company of heroes did the mix so well i thought

[Orgun]

Damn blizzard can make good video's, the amount of detail is insane.

[angelox]

I was in two minds about WC3 and FT. The single player story was great, but there was something off about the multiplayer. I thought I was just bad but a lot of people just got owned by a unbalanced AI and yeah despite heros being very kick ass idea, didnt quite work out when a lvl 9 hero could decimate a small army. Like people have said before me, the sheer amount of extra's in the multiplayer kept it alive. Tower defense was very very good, they also had a Diablo 2 type game where you could player up to 4 people down a dungeon, quite fun up untill the tonk section ^^

[Malavon]

Yeah, I'd agree with that. I loved the single player of WC3 (completed it several times) but never got on with the multiplayer - for some reason I was always horribly bad. I'd outnumber the other person 2 to 1 with us both having pretty much the same units but for some reason I'd always get slaughtered.

It's not that I'm bad at RTS games either, I spent 20 hours or so playing online trying to improve, watched countless replays of the best players in the world, read about their tactics etc and new exactly what I was doing, but I still somehow managed to suck

Kinda fortunate really that I'm better at SC as it doesn't look like there will be another WC RTS game for ages, if at all.

[Riskbreaker]

Fantastic news. I'm gonna have to load up the first game to remember the storyline.

Have killed many a day at work playing *cough*Starcraft*cough* so I've got high hopes for this

Gotta chuckle at that trailer though. All that work that goes into kitting out a marine when we all know he's gonna get killed by the first Zergling he encounters